A Novel Drug Eluting Ureteral Stent: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of a Ketorolac Loaded Ureteral Stent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the short-term safety and efficacy of a ketorolac loaded ureteral stent compared to a standard stent (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, double-blind study patients were randomized 1:1 to ketorolac loaded or control stents after ureteroscopy. The primary end point was an intervention for pain defined as unscheduled physician contact, change in pain medication or early stent removal. Secondary end points included medication use and pain visual analog score. A total of 20 patients underwent serum safety testing for ketorolac levels. RESULTS: None of the safety cohort had detectable serum ketorolac levels. Among the 276 patients there was no difference in primary (9.0% ketorolac loaded vs 7.0% control, p = 0.66) or secondary (22.6% ketorolac loaded vs 25.2% control, p = 0.67) intervention rates. Mean pain pill count at day 3 was lower in the ketorolac loaded stent group than in the control group (p <0.05). A higher number (p = 0.057) of patients with ketorolac loaded (32%) stents used no or limited pain medications compared to controls (22%). A higher number of male patients with ketorolac loaded stents used no pain medication on days 3 and 4 compared to female patients with ketorolac loaded stents, and male and female control patients (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall safety of the ketorolac loaded stent was confirmed. Although there was no significant difference in primary or secondary intervention rates, a trend toward a treatment benefit was noted for patients receiving drug loaded stents. Specifically young male patients appeared to require less pain medication when the ketorolac loaded stent was used. Future studies with higher drug concentrations or alternative drug eluting stents may prove beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".